struggled a bit with the tracking here...i don't think it's bad alignment because i was able to get 2 min tracking on some frames just very inconsistent, dropped it down to 45 seconds and still not consistent, not sure if it's because it was windy, or just bad tracking by tracker itself or maybe i need to get another counterweight to balance the setup better

would love to hear what you guys think particularly with editing side of things, i know i still need to capture subs separately for the bright core and also how do you guys deal with halo around bright stars?

The really impressive thing is capturing all that minute dust surrounding the complex.

I think a little wider FOV to do a different composition would be stronger, but that's being nit-picky.

At this view scale, it looks good. At large scale view, the stars have some shape to them, from the tracking perhaps. If you were running pHD guiding software, you could nail down the tracking error pretty quickly.

The really impressive thing is capturing all that minute dust surrounding the complex.

I think a little wider FOV to do a different composition would be stronger, but that's being nit-picky.

At this view scale, it looks good. At large scale view, the stars have some shape to them, from the tracking perhaps. If you were running pHD guiding software, you could nail down the tracking error pretty quickly.

Very best,

thanks mate, you're right tracking definitely not perfect

need to try to do it again on a (hopefully) windless night, i feel like that setup it shouldn't have problems tracking 45 seconds without guiding

What you can do is try to make sure your polar alignment is tighter, that will help quite a bit here. I'm not sure how you're currently doing it, but you can start to build up "drift alignment" as a tool in your toolbox to supplement polar alignment.

If you're precisely polar aligned, at wider FOV angles like you're using, you'll get tracking of 2~4+ minutes without much period error.

Other things as you already mentioned are ensuring your setup is balanced very precisely so that after it changes arcs the weight shift doesn't cause problems. Also, less strain on the worm gear and cogs if you're balanced properly. Weight matters a lot, and when you're at the limits of the mount or undermounted, this kind of issue is prevelant. If you overmount, you'll have it a lot easier. You can look to shed some weight by considering that you don't need to use that 70-200 and instead, get a simple prime lens in the focal length that you prefer for FOV. You don't have to use an AF Canon lens. You can instead use inexpensive high quality primes that are legacy, such as M42 (Pentax) mount Super Takumar lenses adapted to the EF mount. You could a 50mm F1.4, 135mm F3.5, 200mm F4, etc, all lighter weight, inxepensive, sharp, good multi-coating, and you can stop them down 1~2 stops to get really good coma control and sharpness for cheap and help manage any CA. Worth toying with for these purposes. The 135mm and 200mm are excellent for wide field groupings like you're doing here.

MalVeauX wrote in post #18538844What you can do is try to make sure your polar alignment is tighter, that will help quite a bit here. I'm not sure how you're currently doing it, but you can start to build up "drift alignment" as a tool in your toolbox to supplement polar alignment.

If you're precisely polar aligned, at wider FOV angles like you're using, you'll get tracking of 2~4+ minutes without much period error.

Other things as you already mentioned are ensuring your setup is balanced very precisely so that after it changes arcs the weight shift doesn't cause problems. Also, less strain on the worm gear and cogs if you're balanced properly. Weight matters a lot, and when you're at the limits of the mount or undermounted, this kind of issue is prevelant. If you overmount, you'll have it a lot easier. You can look to shed some weight by considering that you don't need to use that 70-200 and instead, get a simple prime lens in the focal length that you prefer for FOV. You don't have to use an AF Canon lens. You can instead use inexpensive high quality primes that are legacy, such as M42 (Pentax) mount Super Takumar lenses adapted to the EF mount. You could a 50mm F1.4, 135mm F3.5, 200mm F4, etc, all lighter weight, inxepensive, sharp, good multi-coating, and you can stop them down 1~2 stops to get really good coma control and sharpness for cheap and help manage any CA. Worth toying with for these purposes. The 135mm and 200mm are excellent for wide field groupings like you're doing here.

Very best,

thanks Martin

i started off doing drift, now i use polemaster (best money i've spent) for polar alignment, after alignment i managed to get a couple frames of good 2 min tracking which is why i said earlier i don't believe tracking is the issue here, i am hoping it is just needing more counter weight and or wind giving me grief hahaha

Not a member yet? Click here to register to the forums.Registered members get all the features: search, following threads, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, settings, view hosted photos, own reviews and more...